Lawsuits Cast Doubt on Workability and Effectiveness of High School Exit Exams - Case Study Example

Lawsuits Cast Doubt on Workability And Effectiveness of High School Exit Exams Introduction The primary objective of a modern and responsive educational system is to keep students in school from the lower grades to college level. This means increasing the graduation rates in high school, which is the crucial stage when students begin to drop out of schooling altogether. One of the widely accepted reasons why few high school students progress to college is the high cost of college education. However, Greene & Winters (2004), suggest that the real reason for this is the generally poor quality of high school graduates in the entire USA. A recent nationwide study by the Manhattan Institute revealed that only 32 percent of all American students leaving high school are college-ready. The picture is said to be bleaker for the so-called ELL (English Language Learner) students, which is 20 percent for African-American students and 16 percent for Hispanics. Among all the states, California has the highest population of such minority students, followed only by New York (Garcia, 1991), such that a big proportion of graduates from California’s public high schools is unfit for college. To erase this blot in the state’s educational landscape, the state legislature enacted the California High School Exit Exams (CAHSEE) in 1999, which was implemented on a voluntary basis in 2001 for the high school students scheduled to graduate in 2004. From that time until the exit exam was made mandatory in 2006 as a requirement for graduation of all public high school students, the program has been hounded by controversy. So far, two class action suits have been filed against state authorities alleging that the exit exam is arbitrary and impracticable. This paper examines the effects of CAHSEE to see if there is really such a cause for action against the program and whether the changes set to be introduced in the rules as a consequence of the lawsuits can improve the situation. CAHSEE The California High School Exit Exam is one of many state-specific educational schemes given impetus by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which was enacted by the national legislature in 2001 to reduce the dropout rates and narrow the perceived achievement gap among high school students all over the US. A priority concern of NCLB is the increasing number of special education students who lag behind in academic achievement because of physical and cultural handicaps. Students with physical disabilities and those with ethnic roots, that altogether comprise 35 percent of the public high school population in California (Greene & Winters, 2004), have the highest dropout rate and the lowest ranking in academic achievement and expectations because of poverty and lack of language skills. The NCLB mandated the adoption of testing schemes to ensure that the public school system benefits all students and non-performing public schools improve their instruction. CAHSEE was California’s response to the measure, which has similarity in content to other schemes established in about half of the American states. There are a dozen other smaller programs, including the school choice initiative and the voucher-and-charter school scheme in which students are allowed to leave public schools for better performing private ones, with appropriate assistance (Forster, 2006). In all, the common goal is to forge a 100 percent passing rate for all public high school students so no one is deprived of the opportunity to pursue a college degree. The CAHSEE consists of two main sections: English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. Under the ELA section, examinees are usually asked 72 multiple-choice questions and have to write a 2 and ½ page essay. To obtain a passing grade in this section, the students must get 60 percent of the questions right. In the math section, which comprises 80 multiple-choice questions, the passing score is 55 percent. Sample questions in the ELA and math tests provided by the California Department of Education are as follow: 1. ELA – What does the word “eccentricities” mean in the following sentence?: The state’s wealth is only increased by its eccentricities and its magic. a) Unusual characteristics b) Large population c) Diverse climate d) Famous beauty 2. Math – A CD player sells for $80 at regular price. It is on sale for 20% off. What is the sale price of the CD player? a) $16 b) $60 c) $64 d) $96 Judging from the discouraging results of the exit exam, not many graduating high school students in California know that “eccentricities” means any unusual or unique characteristics, or that 20 percent of 80 is 16 such that if you deduct 16 from 80 the result is 64. For both sample questions, the use of a pocket dictionary or calculate would come in handy. Outcomes Government studies under the auspices of NCLB claim that CAHSEE has made academic improvements possible, what with nine out of 10 students reported to have passed the exit exam in 2006. However, the privately funded Center on Education Policy (CEP) disputes this claim as based on purely scientific evaluation done without valid empirical research. For the past three years, the CEP has conducted an annual study of the exit exam called “State High School Exit Exams,” which consistently concluded that CAHSEE is not helping at all in the common desire to keep students in school. When the exit exam was conducted for the second year in 2002, a passing rate of only 40 percent was noted ((Rubin, 2006). According to Forster (2006), the actual passing rate for the exit exam is a dismal 1 of 10 students, which meant that 41,758 members of class 2006 were denied high school diplomas for failing the high-stakes test. The figure was worse for ELL students whose passing rate for that year was 1 out of 4. However, critics of CAHSEE acknowledge an improvement in 2007 when 91 percent of examinees passed the two main sections of the exit exam, which are English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. In some school districts of the state, several hundreds failed but in other districts only less than a dozen failures were reported. Moreover, 4,000 high school students who failed when they first took the test in 2006 obtained a passing grade when they took the test for the second time in 2007. During that year, the passing rate for all students taking the CAHSEE for the first time was placed at a much-improved 80 percent (Hernandez, 2007). Nonetheless, CEP decided that the outcomes of CAHSEE are mixed and tentative (California Report, 2006). In 2005, the CEP declared: “Despite efforts of many states to provide additional resources and creating and implementing new policies and programs to help more students pass the tests, initial pass rates have remained stagnant and achievement gaps persist, especially in states where exit exams have been in place for several years.” The Center examined the impact of these exams on ELL and special education students and found that the initial passing rate of ELLs on the math section is 30-40 percent lower than the overall passing rates, while the gap is even bigger in ELA. This raises the possibility that a significant number of ELL students could be denied a high school diploma based on their test performance. The passing rates are especially worse for African-Americans, Hispanics and physically challenged students. As a result, Rubin (2006) said the exit exams have failed to meet the legislative objective of increasing the passing rates for high school students and closing the achievement gap. Even for minority students who passed the tests, their scores are still lower than mainstream students based on grade-level standards (Abramson, 2007). Greene & Winters (2004) echo this view, concluding in their study of the exit exam that it has had no palpable effects on the high school graduates rates in California. Lawsuits The first indication that CAHSEE may not be the perfect answer to the dropout and underachievement problem among public high school students in California came in 2002 on the heels of the initial implementation of the exit exams. Courtney Kidd, a physically handicapped student, filed a class action suit before the Alameda County Superior Court alleging that the application of the exit exams violates the state’s constitutional and statutory law on public high school students with physical disabilities. In the lawsuit docketed as Case #4468: Kidd v CDE, the petitioners claimed that CAHSEE was implemented at the expense of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), which were enacted much earlier to protect and promote the educational interests of physically handicapped students. The case is still pending in court as of 2007 probably because of its complex legal and social ramifications, which go beyond the issue of whether the exit exam puts certain types of students at a disadvantage. In another class action suit against CAHSEE, Valenzuela v O’Connell, the Alameda County Superior Court did not take as much time to decide. Liliana Valenzuela filed the case in 2006 against Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, the State of California, the California Department of Education, and the California State Board of Education on behalf of parents of racial minority students. The petitioners complained that the State has failed to provide some or all members of class 2006 with an equal and reasonable opportunity to pass the exit exam. In the process, these students were denied their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. It was suggested that examinees who obtained a passing score in one section of the tests but failed the other section were denied their high school diploma anyway. After more than a year of intense litigation, the parties in the case reached an agreement in July 2007 to settle the case as brokered by Alameda Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman. The settlement provides that all high school seniors, except those named as petitioners in Kidd v CDE, who fail the CAHSEE and thus denied their diploma will receive two years of additional instruction from their schools at the latter’s expense. The school districts will also shoulder the costs if these students resort to other educational options to obtain a high school diploma or its equivalent, such as enrolling in a community college or adult school and being re-designated as a senior for an additional year of high school studies. Since Valenzuela v O’Connell involves special education students, the settlement would exempt such students from taking the exit exam for two years, during which school authorities would conduct a study why these students failed in 2006 although they were given special accommodations, including the use of a calculator in the examination room and allowing them extra time. Discussion The lawsuits tend to support the view that CAHSEE is workable and effective for some students but objectionable to the majority, especially the students from racial minorities who speak another language at home, the African-Americans who come from impoverished families, and those with special education needs such as the physically handicapped. Obviously, a program like CASHEE is necessary to address the problem on the growing number of half-baked high school graduates that no self-respecting colleges would admit. Without such high-stakes testing, the schools would have little incentive to educate their wards properly because teachers get paid anyway whether their students learn the basic skills or not. The settlement set in Valenzuela v O’Connell emphasizes the fact that the high school exit exam might just work if the concerned schools participate more actively in its implementation and be prepared to shoulder the extra expense in time and resources. For example, the court proposed that the schools provide at their expense a 2-year remedial instruction to students who have failed the exit exams. It also asks the involved schools to provide continuing academic assistance to all grades 10, 11 and 12 students for the purpose of preparing them for the learning skills measured in CASHEE. For CASHEE to achieve its objective of achieving a higher passing rate, public high schools will need to expand the measures suggested by the court in resolving the Valenzuela v O’Connell case. These include initiating a transition program for middle grades to high school; developing extra help systems; putting students under a five-year program of study including one year beyond high school; giving students access to quality technical studies; requiring every teacher to train in the use of content-based literacy and study skills; developing a transition program from high school to college and careers; and expanding the use of information technology. References 1.Abramson, M. (2007). “Local Exit Exam Pass Rates Mixed.” Palo Alto Daily News; 6 July 2007. 2. Forster, G. (2006). “Donkey in Disguise.” Center on Education Policy, Vol. 6, N0. 3. 3. Garcia, E.E. (1991). “The Education of Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students.” Effective Instructional Practices, University of California. 4. Greene, J.P. & Winters, M.A. (2004). “It’s Elementary.” National Review Online, at: http://www.nationalreview.com/ 5. Hernandez, M. (2007). ”Most County Seniors Pass Exit Exam.” Venture County Star, 18 June 2007. 6. Rubin, J. (2006). “Quick Answer sought on Exit Exam.” Los Angeles Times, 20 May 2006. 7. The California Report (2006). “High Stakes High School Exit Exam.” Available online at: http://www.californiareport.org/ Read More